Category: Uncategorized

End The Federal Reserve!


White House Says Child Soldiers Are Ok, if They Fight Terrorists

by Michelle Chen From

“You cannot be completely happy with all these wounds—both in your body and in your mind.”
15 year-old child soldier

The phenomenon of child soldiers, like genocide, slavery and torture, seems like one of those crimes that no nation could legitimately defend. Yet the Obama administration just decided to leave countless kids stranded on some of the world’s bloodiest battlegrounds.

The administration stunned human rights groups last month by sidestepping a commitment to help countries curb the military exploitation of children. Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy reported that President Obama issued a presidential memorandum granting waivers from the Child Soldiers Prevention Act to four countries: Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan and Yemen. The memo instructed Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that it is in our “national interest” to continue extending military aid to those countries, despite their failure to comply with the rules Congress passed and George W. Bush signed in 2008. 

A thumbs-up for child soldiers from the pen of President Obama? Whitehouse spokesperson P.J. Crowley explained it was a strategic decision to ease the 2008 law. The rationale is that on balance, it’s more effective for the U.S. to keep providing military assistance that will help countries gradually evolve out of the practice of marshaling kids to the battlefield, rather than isolating them.

According to the Christian Science Monitor, Crowley argued, “These countries have put the right policies in place… but are struggling to correctly implement them.” The New York Times reported that administration spokespeople also cited the countries’ crucial role in global counter-terrorism efforts. 

Strategically granting certain countries a pass on child rights reflects Washington’s warped attitude toward the global human rights regime. The U.S. has failed to ratify, or simply ignored, numerous human rights protocols, and our ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child has languished. Human Rights Watch points out, “Only the United States and Somalia, which has no functioning national government, have failed to ratify the treaty.” (Although we did ratify two optional protocols in 2002, relating to child soldiers and other forms of exploitation.)

Somalia, by the way, is one of just two countries that the White House allowed to be sanctioned under the 2008 law; the second was Burma. Presumably this is because Somalia is not receiving direct military funding, reports the Monitor. Yet the U.S. continues to support Somali government forces as they fight Islamic insurgents—with the help of a large force of child soldiers. (To their credit, Somalia has at least promised the U.N. they”ll stop arming kids eventually, according to the Washington Post).

Maybe you could argue that the U.S. is so “advanced” it needn’t bother with rules about children’s rights to education and whatnot. Obama’s waivers might be seen as realpolitik in areas like Yemen, whose military we support as part of our sprawling counter-terrorism operations. But the bottom line is that the administration has carved out an exception to a law intended to ethically guide the flow of U.S. aid money around the world.

According to the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, which holds America to the same scrutiny that countries like Uganda and DRC routinely face in the media, we benefit indirectly and directly from the exploitation of child fighters:

In 2006 the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) registered 59 children in detention during 16 visits to five places of detention or internment controlled by the USA or the UK in Iraq. US soldiers stationed at the detention centres and former detainees described abuses against child detainees, including the rape of a 15-year-old boy at Abu Ghraib, Iraq, forced nudity, stress positions, beating and the use of dogs. Following US troop increases in Iraq in early 2007, US military arrests of children there rose from an average of 25 per month in 2006 to an average of 100 per month. Military officials reported that 828 were children held at Camp Cropper by mid-September, including children as young as 11. A 17-year-old was reportedly strangled by a fellow detainee in early 2007. 

In August 2007 the USA opened Dar al-Hikmah, a non-residential facility intended to provide education services to 600 detainees aged 11-17 pending release or transfer to Iraqi custody. US military officials excluded an estimated 100 children from participation in the program, apparently on the grounds that they were “extremists” and “beyond redemption”.

Omar Khadr, the young Canadian detainee at Guantanamo Bay, remains trapped in a Kafkaesque quasi-judicial system without regard to the fact that he was a child when captured. Rights advocates like Monia Mazigh in Ottowa have called for Khadr to be recognized as a child soldier, but the administration seems to think securing a conviction in Kangaroo Court takes precedence over international law. And because Khadr, like the other Gitmo prisoners, is identified with that faceless dark horde the U.S. has branded “terrorists,” Americans aren’t even inclined to see him as a human being, let alone as a juvenile soldier deserving of sympathy.

So America’s hypocrisy on children in war has many layers. Obama condemns the practice in theory, then undermines federal law by issuing waivers for our partners in Africa and the Middle East. And of course, Washington sees no problem with punishing child soldiers as adults when they’re aligned with the terrorists who are bent on destroying America.

UN Treaties alone obviously won’t demobilize all the world’s child soldiers, but their main role is to put down a legal placeholder. And it’s that moral guidepost that the U.S. undermines every time it waives parallel U.S. laws based on the “national interest.”

Obama’s memorandum may look jarring on paper, but it’s grimly consistent with Washington’s agenda of waging war indefinitely, without boundaries, against an enemy we can no longer really define. The U.S. supports warfare that uses children as weapons, warfare that kills civilian children indiscriminately, warfare that ultimately sends our own children to perish on foreign soil. And so America marches on in a world of conflict where the first casualty is innocence itself.

Billions in Afghanistan aid dollars unaccounted for: audit

by Staff Writers – Washington (AFP) Oct 28, 2010 fROM

Nearly 18 billion dollars earmarked for reconstruction in Afghanistan remain unaccounted for, snagged in a “labyrinth” of contract bureaucracy, a sweeping US government audit has shown.

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) said 17.7 billion dollars was obligated over three years to nearly 7,000 contractors, but the Pentagon, State Department and US Agency for International Development were unable to say how much money has been spent.

The audit addresses fiscal years 2007 through 2009, but the problems go back to 2002 when the United States began funding Afghan reconstruction, because “much of the data available from the agencies prior to 2007 was too poor to be analyzed,” the report said.

And years into the reconstruction there is still no central government database to monitor the projects from various US agencies and departments, SIGAR found in its report, which was seen Thursday by AFP.

“Prior to this audit report there was no comprehensive study on contractors and the money the US is spending through contractors on Afghan reconstruction,” said special inspector general Arnold Fields in the first such snapshot of the reconstruction contracting environment in war-torn Afghanistan.

“This audit is crucial because if we don’t even know who we’re giving money to, it is nearly impossible to conduct system-wide oversight.”

Reconstruction is a key component in a US-led anti-insurgency effort which seeks to stabilize the volatile south and east of Afghanistan, in part by helping Afghan farmers and improving local government.

Asked about the report, State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said it did not come as a surprise and that the administration has been working to improve accountability.

“I don’t think we’re surprised that as we’re going through this, we’re going to have reports like this that show weaknesses,” Crowley told reporters.

He said the report would contribute to “our efforts to improve our cooperation with the Afghan government and improve the ability of the Afghan government to be responsible and accountable for the support that we do provide.”

The SIGAR said its report, addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and US ambassador to Baghdad Karl Eikenberry, “shows that navigating the confusing labyrinth of government contracting is difficult, at best.”

It said the Department of Defense alone has four organizations set up to track Pentagon-funded contracts, but they do not share information. Cross-agency information sharing is also minimal, it found.

SIGAR, mandated by Congress to try and track reconstruction spending, identified nearly 7,000 contractor groups, including for-profit and non-profit groups as well as government agencies involved in Afghanistan.

Among the largest contracts, it said, is a deal worth 1.8 billion dollars to a US-based company to train Afghanistan’s national police forces, and 691 million dollars to an Afghan construction firm to build military facilities.

The future of the reconstruction effort in Afghanistan is believed to be in jeopardy because of President Hamid Karzai’s threatened ban on private security guards, which aid organizations rely on for protection.

Nicolas Sarkozy warned by German Chancellor not to unveil  £150m ‘bling’ presidential jet

By Allan Hall from

With riots in the streets and poll ratings in the basement, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is under pressure from both home and abroad to delay delivery of a refitted jet that will cost the taxpayer £151million.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is among those who have apparently told the luxury loving Sarkozy that now might not be the best time to take charge of the aircraft that is said to be dripping with ‘bling’.

German sources say she advised Sarkozy earlier this week, at a meeting where the pair cut a controversial deal aimed at protecting the euro, to ‘hold back’ on taking deliver of the aircraft currently undergoing a series of final test flights over the Indian Ocean and South Pacific French administered islands.

Bling jet: The refurbished offical Airbus for President Nicolas Sarkozy cost £150millionThe refurbished offical Airbus for President Nicolas Sarkozy cost £150million: It is seen here landing in New Caledonian after a training flight on Wednesday
Luxury: The plane is said to feature a bed, shower and a conference roomLuxury: The plane is said to feature a bed, shower and a conference room

Mrs. Merkel, who takes her official flights aboard a choice of two aircraft, is concerned along with other European leaders that such blatant excess might only further fuel the French protests against unpopular austerity measures.

With French lawmakers voting yesterday to pass the bill raising the minimum retirement age to 62 from 60, the new presidential aircraft — an Airbus A330-200 dubbed ‘Air Sarko One’ – was being prepared for its flight to France.

Mr Sarkozy is said to be locked in talks with everyone from his image advisers to the treasury about the possibility of parking the plane somewhere until the fighting mood in France dies down.

Team Sarkozy seems divided. Those who think the aircraft should fly in, the tricolour of France blazoned across its tail, point out that they have already given a nod to the new age of austerity by agreeing to refurbish a 12-year-old aircraft instead of buying a new one.

But opponents see it as one more Marie Antoinette-esque gesture from a president whose bodyguards are working overtime to protect him in the wake of the convulsions his policies have caused.

Entente cordiale: Angela Merkel pulls a face during an EU summit in Brussels. She is said to have advised President Sarkozy not to unveil the aircraftEntente cordiale: Angela Merkel pulls a face during an EU summit in Brussels. She is said to have advised President Sarkozy not to unveil the aircraft

Leaders of the Socialist opposition are portraying its purchase as proof of his continuing distance from reality.

‘We understand that the president has been very demanding about the fittings and that they are quite luxurious,’ said René Dosière, a Socialist MP from recession-hit northern Picardy.

‘At a moment when he is already so unpopular, I imagine this could cause him to lose more points.’

Already the costs of the plane have been budgeted to the defence ministry rather than the Elysee Palace. It can accommodate a Sarkozy entourage of 60, has a conference room seating 11, an office and a presidential bedroom suite.

‘The A330 will meet the many international travel needs of the head of state — for example, those related to the next presidency by France of the G-20 and the G-8,’ said Col. Francis Pollet, head of resource management of the defence ministry.

Unrest: Protesters burn flares during a march through Paris against pension law reformUnrest: Protesters burn flares during a march through Paris against pension law reform

A weekend opinion poll by Journal du Dimanche showed Sarkozy’s approval rating at 29 percent, the lowest in memory for any French president.

The defence ministry insists that the plane will not be replete with luxuries, despite the presidential bedroom, private shower and fitted galley kitchen.

One of his spokesmen threatened legal action earlier this year against a plumber who said he was told to install a luxury bath – a statement later retracted as ‘a joke’.

‘There is very little that they can achieve on an A330 that can’t be achieved on a normal business jet,’ said Doug McVitie to the New York Times.

The managing director of Arran Aerospace, a consulting firm in Dinan, France, added: ‘How often do they have to travel such long distances requiring a bed and a shower.

‘These aircraft are just an attempt to make a statement through ostentation.’

Osama bin Laden: A dead nemesis perpetuated by the US government

– Bin Laden’s voice was detected regularly until [14 December 2001] by intelligence operatives monitoring radio transmissions in Tora Bora, according to the Pentagon [details]. Since then, nothing has been heard from the al-Qa’eda leader and President Bush has hinted in private that bin Laden’s silence could mean he has been killed. [Telegraph, 12/28/2001]

– Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama’s gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama’s ghost alive or because they have no means of communication.

– With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival? [New York Times. July 11, 2002]

FOX News Report: Bin Laden Already Dead  Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. [Fox News. December 26, 2001]

– Bin Laden has often been reported to be in poor health. Some accounts claim that he is suffering from Hepatitis C, and can expect to live for only two more years. According to Le Figaro, last year [2000] he ordered a mobile dialysis machine to be delivered to his base at Kandahar in Afghanistan. [Guardian]]  

Peter Bergen: Bin Laden has aged ‘enormously’  This is a man who was clearly not well. I mean, as you see from these pictures here, he’s really, by December [2001] he’s looking pretty terrible. Bin Laden December 27, 2001 video But by December, of course, that tape that was aired then, he’s barely moving the left side of his body. So he’s clearly got diabetes. He has low blood pressure. He’s got a wound in his foot. He’s apparently got dialysis … for kidney problems. [CNN]

– The [December 27, 2001 video] was dismissed by the Bush administration … as sick propaganda possibly designed to mask the fact the al-Qa’eda leader was already dead. “He could have made the video and then ordered that it be released in the event of his death,” said one White House aide. [Telegraph]

Pakistan’s Musharraf: Bin Laden probably dead Pakistan’s president says he thinks Osama bin Laden is most likely dead because the suspected terrorist has been unable to get treatment for his kidney disease. [A Bush administration official] said U.S. intelligence is that bin Laden needs dialysis every three days and “it is fairly obvious that that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout.” [CNN]

– Renal dialysis — talking about hemodialysis — is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down. The most common cause of something like that would be something like diabetes and hypertension. Once that’s happened, if you’re separated from your dialysis machine — and incidentally, dialysis machines require electricity, they’re going to require clean water, they’re going to require a sterile setting — infection is a huge risk with that. If you don’t have all those things and a functioning dialysis machine, it’s unlikely that you’d survive beyond several days or a week at the most. [CNN]

Karzai: bin Laden ‘probably’ dead Osama bin Laden is “probably” dead, but former Taliban leader Mullah Omar is alive, Afghan President Hamid Karzai has said. [CNN] FBI: Bin Laden ‘probably’ dead The US Federal Bureau of Investigation’s counter-terrorism chief, Dale Watson, says he thinks Osama bin Laden is “probably” dead. [BBC] Magazine runs what it calls bin Laden’s will The editor-in-chief of a London-based Arab news magazine said a purported will it published Saturday was written late last year [2001] by Osama bin Laden, and shows “he’s dying or he’s going to die soon.” [CNN]

 – Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader. “The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead,” the source said. [FOX News]

Translation of Funeral Article in Egyptian Paper: al-Wafd, Wednesday, December 26, 2001 Vol 15 No 4633News of Bin Laden’s Death and Funeral 10 days ago  

– A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that binLaden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. [Welfare State]

Osama bin who? Israel does not view bin Laden as a threat. [Janes] Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported. [World Tribune] [See also The Fake bin Laden Audio Tape] [See also Benazir Bhutto says Osama is dead.] 

– Osama bin Laden” Fitter than ever in 2004

When you hear a threat which is “probably” made by bin Laden, just remember that he’s “probably” dead.Also think about who benefits from your believing he’s alive.

Dark chocolate prevents damage from strokes

From Monday, October 04, 2010 by: David Gutierrez, staff writer

NaturalNews) Researchers from Johns Hopkins University believe they have discovered a biochemical pathway by which a chemical naturally found in dark chocolate can help protect the body from strokes.

Previous research has shown that a flavanol known as epicatechin appears to protect the body against cardiovascular disease and stroke. In the current study, researchers induced strokes in mice and then dosed them with epicatechin to observe how the chemical acted in their bodies.

“We gave different doses of epicatechin in mice 90 minutes before a stroke and found that it reduced infarct [stroke damage] size,” lead researcher Sylvain Dore said. “When we gave epicatechin after a stroke, it had a protective effect up to 3.5 hours later, but not after six hours.”

The researchers found that epicatechin activated two chemical pathways known to protect brain cells from damage, the Nrf2 pathway and the heme oxygenase pathway. When the researchers later induced stroke in mice genetically modified to lack both pathways, epicatechin had no protective effect.

The researchers suggested that epicatechin may one day form the basis for a drug to protect the brain from damage in those who have suffered strokes. The three-hour duration of the protective benefit is particularly encouraging, as modern pharmaceuticals are protective for a much shorter period. But Dore warned that it will be years, if ever, before such a treatment can be developed.

In the meantime, researchers caution consumers against gorging on chocolate as a way to protect their hearts, as the high sugar content can produce other health problems.

“Chocolate comes with a lot of calories,” said flavanol researcher and doctoral candidate Martin Lajous of Harvard University. “I would talk about small amounts of dark chocolate rather than chocolate in general.”

“I prefer to focus on cocoa,” Dore said. “Cocoa is not like chocolate, which is high in saturated fat and calories. Cocoa can be part of a healthy diet, combined with fruits and vegetables.”

Top 10 Low Pass Flybys of All Time

Distrust In Mainstream Media Nears All-Time High


(NaturalNews) A recent Gallup poll has found that 57 percent of Americans have little or no trust in the mainstream media to report full, accurate and fair news. This level of distrust in the media is the highest it has been since at least 1973, topped only by recent record-low trust levels in the legislative branch of the U.S. government.

The findings confirm earlier ones from back in August that revealed an astounding 78 percent of Americans have little or no confidence in television news. And print news hardly fares any better, with a mere 25 percent of Americans having any significant level of confidence in its honesty and integrity. Both statistics are among the lowest they have ever been for such categories.

The most recent poll found that nearly half of Americans think the media is too “liberal”, while 15 percent think it is too “conservative”. And even in spite of the growth of internet and cable news over the past couple decades, such statistics remain roughly the same.

According to the survey, Democrats and “liberals” are much more likely than Republicans and “conservatives” to trust the media at all. And like Republicans and “conservatives”, Independents have little or no trust in the media either. However, 63 percent of people overall believe the news media is biased in either one direction or the other.

Among all the categories, adults aged 18 to 29 lost the most trust in the mainstream media over the past several years, as did people who make $75,000 or more a year and those who graduated from college. On the other hand, less educated people with lower incomes tend to be the most trusting of the mainstream media, the survey found.

Sources for this story include:………

Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11

June 8, 2006 (updated January 20, 2009) – From

The ‘FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11’. – Vice President Cheney says, ‘We’ve never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11’

by Enver MasudSUGGESTION: Read the FREE ebook — “9/11 Unveiled
Watch author’s rebuttal of The 9/11 Commission Report

The FBI’s “Most Wanted Terrorists” web page does not state that Bin Laden is wanted for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

The FBI page states: “Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world.”

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI’s web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI’s Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

In the months leading up to the Septmber 11, 2001 attack, it is reported, the Taliban “outlined various ways bin Laden could be dealt with. He could be turned over to the EU, killed by the Taliban, or made available as a target for Cruise missiles.” The Bush administration did not accept the Taliban’s offer.

“On September 20, 2001,” according to the Guardian, “the Taliban offered to hand Osama bin Laden to a neutral Islamic country for trial if the US presented them with evidence that he was responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington. The US rejected the offer.”

On September 23, 2001 the BBC reported that four of the hijack “suspects” – Waleed Al Shehri, Abdulaziz Al Omari, Saeed Alghamdi, and possibly Khalid Al Midhar – were alive, and that FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged “the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.”

Bin Laden, in a September 28, 2001 interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummat, is reported to have said:

I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.

Experts dismiss the video tape “found in a house in Jalalabad”, Afghanistan, which allegedly shows Bin Laden confessing to the September 11 attacks. In a December 20, 2001, broadcast by German TV channel Das Erste “two independent translators and an expert on oriental studies found the White House’s translation not only to be inaccurate, but manipulative.”

FBI Director Robert Mueller, in a speech at the Commonwealth Club on April 19, 2002, said: “In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper – either here in the United States, or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere – that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot.”

In fact there are no Arab names on the partial list of passengers on the 9/11 flights.

Yet on September 12, 2001 ABC News reported that “investigators have identified all the hijackers”. Among those identified was “Satan Suqami, a Saudi national on American Airlines Flight 11, whose passport was recovered in the rubble.”

Bin Laden is the “prime suspect” in the September 11 attacks, said President Bush on September 17, 2001, and he pledged to capture him “dead or alive.”

“I am absolutely convinced that the al-Qaida network, which he heads, was responsible for this attack,” Secretary of State Colin Powell said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

Powell said the government would “put before the world, the American people, a persuasive case that … it is al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, who has been responsible.”

On October 7, 2001, the U.S. military began operation Operation Enduring Freedom – a war on Afghanistan.

The evidence against Bin Laden, promised by Secretary of State Colin Powell on September 23, 2001, has yet to be made available to the public.

On March 29, 2006, on The Tony Snow Show, Vice President Dick Cheney stated: “We’ve never made the case, or argued the case, that somehow Osama Bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming.”

Back on September 16, 2001, Cheney had said he would willingly accept bin Laden’s “head on a platter”.

[Digital morphing – voice, video, and photo – has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives. . . .

Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world.–William M. Arkin, “When Seeing and Hearing Isn’t Believing,” Washington Post, February 1, 1999]

Osama bin Laden, A.K.A. CIA Asset ‘Tim Osman’,”

Enver Masud, “Deadly Deception, Pretexts for War,” The Wisdom Fund, July 30, 2001

LIVE TV: Taliban deny responsibility — “BBC Sept. 11, 2001 4:54 pm – 5:36 pm,” BBC News, September 11, 2001

Toby Harnden, “Bin Laden is wanted: dead or alive, says Bush,” Telegraph, September 18, 2001

Standard Schaeffer, “‘Al Qaeda Itself Does Not Exist’,” CounterPunch, June 21, 2003

Enver Masud, “Why No Arab Names on Passenger List?,” The Wisdom Fund, July 26, 2004

George Friedman, “America’s Secret War,” The Wisdom Fund, October 11, 2005

Bruce Lawrence (editor), “Messages to the World: The Statements of Osama bin Laden,” Verso (November 28, 2005)

Amber Rupinta, “Duke Professor Skeptical of bin Laden Tape,” ABC News. January 19, 2006

Enver Masud, “What Really Happened to 7 World Trade Center?,” The Wisdom Fund, April 17, 2006

Robert Parry, “CIA: Osama Helped Bush in ’04,”, July 4, 2006

Ed Haas, “Government refuses to authenticate bin Laden ‘confession video’,” Muckraker Report, August 11, 2006

[The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks.–Steve Herrmann, “9/11 conspiracy theory,” BBC News, October 27, 2006]

[“Able Danger did not identify Mohammed Atta or any other 9/11 hijacker at any time prior to Sept. 11, 2001,”–Greg Miller, “Alarming 9/11 claim is found baseless,” Los Angeles Times, December 25, 2006]

[In July of 2006 a large collection of documents was published on a website containing prosecution and defense exhibits for the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. Included in the prosecution exhibits are a set of Flash presentations detailing the government’s account of the passengers on all four commandeered jetliners.–“Victims Lists, Passenger Manifests, and the Alleged Hijackers,”, 2006]

AUDIO: Kevin Barrett talks to Bruce Lawrence of Duke University about the Bin Laden confession tapes which Lawrence says are bogus and that he knows people who work for the United States government who agree with him off the record.– “Bruce Lawrence,”, February 16, 2007

[But more interesting were the examples Krawetz gave of al Qaeda images. Krawetz took an image from a 2006 al Qaeda video of Ayman al-Zawahiri (above right), a senior member of the terrorist organization. The image shows al-Zawahiri sitting in front of a desk and banner with writing on it. But after conducting his error analysis Krawetz was able to determine that al-Zawahiri’s image was superimposed in front of the background–Kim Zetter, “Researcher’s Analysis of al Qaeda Images Reveals Surprises,”, August 2, 2007]

Bin Laden’s message to the American people,”, September 7, 2007 [Is this video real or fake? Has Al-Jazeera been “neutered“?]

Latest Bin Laden Video Is a Forgery: All References to Current Events Are Made During Video Freeze,”, September 9, 2007

VIDEO: “Benazir Bhutto: Bin Laden was Murdered,” BBC, November 2, 2007

Elias Davidsson, “The Events of September 11, 2001 and the Right to the Truth,”, April 14, 2008

[On September 20, 2001, the Bush administration officially declared that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack. Three days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced on Meet the Press that the government would soon release “a white paper” detailing the evidence against bin Laden. . . .

As we know, the US government never got around to releasing the promised white paper.–Mark H. Gaffney, “Was 9/11 an Inside Job?,”, September 8, 2008]

VIDEO: “911 FALSE FLAG,” NuoViso, September 11, 2008

[Even after Sept. 11, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Vice President Dick Cheney continued to resist any military engagement in Afghanistan, because they were hoping for war against Iraq instead.

Bush’s top secret order of Sept. 17 for war with Afghanistan also directed the Pentagon to begin planning for an invasion of Iraq, according to journalist James Bamford’s book Pretext for War.

Cheney and Rumsfeld pushed for a quick victory in Afghanistan in NSC meetings in October, as recounted by both Woodward and Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Lost in the eagerness to wrap up the Taliban and get on with the Iraq War was any possibility of preventing bin Laden’s escape to Pakistan.–Gareth Porter, “Bush Had No Plan to Catch Bin Laden After 9/11,”, September 30, 2008]

[It is thought the authorities were referring to comments made by Mr Bin Laden that he could not prove 100% that his father – whom he says he has not seen since he was 19 – was responsible for the 2001 attacks in the US or the London bombings in 2005.–“Bin Laden son in Spain asylum bid,” BBC News, November 4, 2008]

VIDEO: “Devil’s Advocate,” Netherlands 2, April 8, 2009

[What was remarkable about the Taliban offer was that there wasn’t even an extradition agreement between Afghanistan and the United States. The Taliban was offering to deliver bin Laden to an independent tribunal even though international law did not require it, so long as U.S. officials provided the same type of evidence that is ordinarily required in an extradition proceeding.–Jacob G. Hornberger, “U.S. Foreign Policy Caused the Taliban Problem,”, May 8, 2009]

[He analyzes the purported messages from bin Laden and finds that, as many have suspected, they do not provide evidence of bin Laden’s existence after 2001. This leads naturally to the question: if Osama bin Laden did indeed die in 2001, how and why have dozens of messages from bin Laden appeared since then?

Griffin’s meticulous analysis supports above all one simple and urgent conclusion: if Osama bin Laden is dead, the US should not be using its troops and treasure to hunt him down.–David Ray Griffin, “Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?,” Olive Branch Press, May 20, 2009]

[These ‘intimate relations’ included using Bin Laden for ‘operations’ in Central Asia, including Xinjiang, China. These ‘operations’ involved using al Qaeda and the Taliban in the same manner “as we did during the Afghan and Soviet conflict,” that is, fighting ‘enemies’ via proxies.–“Sibel Edmonds: Bin Laden worked for US till 9/11,”, May 20, 2009]

[The former FBI translator carefully replied, “I have information about things that our government has lied to us about. I know. For example, to say that since the fall of the Soviet Union we ceased all of our intimate relationship with Bin Laden and the Taliban – those things can be proven as lies, very easily, based on the information they classified in my case, because we did carry very intimate relationship with these people, and it involves Central Asia, all the way up to September 11.”–Muriel Kane, “Whistleblower: Bin Laden was US proxy until 9/11,”, July 31, 2009]

[Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence required to take the US to war in the Middle East while also making it appear that Islam is the problem.–Jeff Gates, “Israel and 9/11,”, September 11, 2009]

[A recent survey of news reports covering Osama bin Laden from 2001 to 2009 has provided overwhelming evidence that the al Qaeda leader has been dead since December 13, 2001, and that all messages that have been aired since that time have been fabricated–Elizabeth Woodworth, “Dead or Alive? Osama bin Laden: A Marketing Tool for US-NATO Military Operations ,” Global Research, September 11, 2009]

[Although the case was not good enough to go to court, Blair seemed to be saying, it was good enough to go to war. . . .

Still another reason to doubt the authenticity of this 2004 video is that, although the speaker was addressing the American public, he spoke Arabic rather than English. This is strange, because Osama bin Laden was reportedly fluent in English–David Ray Griffin, “Osama bin Laden as Responsible for the 9/11 Attacks: Is This Belief Based on Evidence?,” Veterans Today, October 30, 2009]

[The US has had no reliable information on the whereabouts of al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in years, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has admitted.–“No Bin Laden reports ‘in years’,” BBC News, December 6, 2009]

Timeline: The search for Bin Laden,” BBC News, December 6, 2009

Spaniard’s photo used for bin Laden poster: Lawmaker upset his face was model for new FBI image on al-Qaida leader,” Associated Press, January 16, 2010

Gareth Porter, “Taliban ‘imposed strict isolation on Osama bin Laden after 1998 to prevent him from carrying out any plots against the United States’,” Inter Press Service, February 12, 2010

[The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys–Jeff Stein, “CIA unit’s wacky idea: Depict Saddam as gay,”, May 25, 2010]

[What about the 9/11 Commission? Its entire report is based on the assumption that bin Laden was behind the attacks. However, the report’s evidence to support this premise has been disowned by the Commission’s own co-chairs, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton. . . .

It is still widely thought to have been established beyond question that the attacks were carried out by members of al-Qaeda. The truth, however, is that the evidence entirely falls apart upon examination, and this fact suggests that 9/11 was instead a false-flag attack – an attack that people within our own government orchestrated while planting evidence to implicate Muslims.–David Ray Griffin, “Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan,”, June 24, 2010] ?

” . . . there is no credible evidence that [19 Arabs] boarded any of these passenger planes.”–Elias Davidsson, “There is no evidence that Muslims committed the crime of 9/11,”, August 11, 2010]

Create a free website or blog at
[ Back to top ]